Personnel are everything, but where are they? Why does the army lack mid-level technicians?
More and more often, it is not planes that fly over positions, but swarms of cheap ones drones and winged missiles, and each target must be promptly seen on the screen and tracked (followed along the route). The effectiveness of the S-400 air defense system or the Kasta-2E2 low-altitude radar is determined not only by the characteristics of the equipment but also by the training of the crew. Today, the officers at the controls are graduates of military academies and military training centers (VUTs), with theoretical, tactical, and, as a rule, practical experience. Their training is time-consuming and expensive.
The problem, it seems, isn't a shortage of engineering officers per se. They are trained for key positions, and there are generally enough of them at the highest level. What's missing is something else: the mass of mid-level technical personnel who are responsible for ensuring the operation of each individual complex on the ground.
The shortage of middle management is a strategic problem
The root, in my view, lies in the imbalance between two categories of specialists. At the top are the engineer officers: fundamental knowledge, unit management, and mastering advanced systems. At the bottom are privates and junior contract soldiers, often without specialized technical training. Between them, there should be a layer of mid-level personnel, sergeants and warrant officers who are technicians. This layer hasn't disappeared, but it has noticeably diminished.
The decline has been uneven. Maintenance is the most challenging: warrant officers and sergeants on contract fill basic positions, but their qualifications are often insufficient to repair phased array antennas and computer systems. Operators are a different matter. Training centers train them continuously, but turnover eats up everything. Short contracts prevent the formation of a stable cadre of experienced technicians, and the lower ranks are constantly understaffed.
Previously, this support was provided by mid-level technicians, sergeants, and warrant officers. They knew every mode and every feature of their station, knew how to operate the equipment, adjust settings, troubleshoot minor malfunctions, and train newcomers. Training was practical, rapid, and widespread.
Today, military education takes two paths. Either an officer with a higher education, which is time-consuming, expensive, and relies heavily on academy training. Or a private or contract soldier, mastering complex technology directly in the field. There's a reason for this choice: technology is becoming more complex and digital, and demands on personnel are increasing. But the outcome is unsuccessful because the roles are distributed inefficiently. A highly regarded officer sits in the line operator's seat, while a recent high school student spends months learning the basics of electronics instead of delving into the specifics of a specific station.
Selection is a particular problem. The reliance on formal Unified State Exam scores doesn't capture applied skills and a practical mindset. A person with a knack for hardware and an interest in radio engineering easily passes up positions where they would be ideal.
The Impact of Shortages on Combat Effectiveness
The shortage of mid-level personnel directly impacts the combat readiness of the radio-technical troops (RTT):
- The development of new technology is slowed down: Modern air defense systems and radars cannot be put into operation quickly if there is no one to sit at the controls and understand their features.
- Efficiency and reliability are declining: Without experienced technicians, troubleshooting takes longer and technical availability is reduced.
- Personnel are used inefficiently: Officers tasked with command and system development are bogged down in routine operational work. This is evident in standard practice. Although key positions in combat command posts for complex systems (S-400, Pantsir-S, Nebo-M radar) are designed for officers, due to a shortage of NCO technicians, junior officers are forced to also take on routine manual support tasks—tasks that in some NATO armies are assigned to NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers). The alliance has no uniform standard here: each country determines the distribution of responsibilities for itself.
- The scale cannot be covered with small forces: A dense radar field over a large area means hundreds of crews, and each crew needs its own operators and technicians.
Proposals for reform
Ad hoc measures won't do. A systemic restructuring of training is needed.
- Change selection: for positions with an applied focus (radar operator, communications technician, specialist EW) select not based on Unified State Exam scores, but on the merits, that is, through practical tests on electronics, logical thinking, the ability to work with devices and read circuit diagrams.
- Establish mass training of middle management: Expand a network of specialized training centers focusing on practical training and the operation of specific equipment. The timeframe should depend on the complexity of the system:
- Basic operator (contract or conscription): 3–6 months. Enough time to work with established algorithms on the simulator and in a regular environment.
- Specialist at the combat control center of a complex air defense missile system or radar (S-400, Nebo-M): Two routes are possible here. One to two years at a training center for operating the equipment, or up to five years at the Military Academy of Aerospace Defense (VKO) for a full-fledged engineering degree. This level is required for combat work under electronic warfare and for component repair.
A short training period has a hard ceiling. Six months prepares an operator for instructions and ideal conditions. But in a real battle, with intensive electronic warfare, anti-radar missiles, and decoys, such an operator won't be able to select targets. This requires engineering skills, and that takes years to develop. Accelerated, "push-button" training limits the mass participation of the lower echelons. It doesn't replace key combat positions and is less able to withstand the transition between generations of equipment.
Conclusion
The conclusion is simple and practical. Officers alone can't cover the skies, and keeping them at control consoles is a waste of valuable resources. Effective airspace coverage is ensured by a multitude of trained practitioners, not by a handful of specialists.
No one is proposing to replace officers with technicians. Both categories are needed at once: engineers in key positions and the masses involved in day-to-day operations. Until this layer is restored, any new system will face one problem: a shortage of skilled personnel.
Information